In reference to the 50 Skater, back on 11/15/2008 I called out to Bruce Bullock and Peter Hledin in regards to the 50. I was told (and I think they would be the guys to know) that the 50 was a stretched 46, not with 4 feet of bustle, but with "a longer running surface" (his exact words).

It was initially being offered by 200MPH Marine LLC, a venture between Bruce Bullock and John Tomlinson.

Yes it will grind it till is catches fire then back off

Sir the Scarf could be 50:1- 100:1 or greater, the laminate that is a easy one, just add more Filiment using the existing as a base line.

Cosker: "In the Miami race the boat began to have an issue on lap three and the team kept running it until lap 11 when the bottom laminates were stripped off the core. If the boat had been pulled out of the race in lap three, damage would have been much more limited."

That's the way it read to me as well? I clearly remember you guys saying, that during the Miami race you were both told on each lap that the problem area was only a cosmetic issue, & safe to continue racing.....?

Saying AFTER the fact, that the boat should have been brought in at the first sign of trouble, sounds more like a cop out for lack of a better term, to put the responsibility on Jeff & Joe's shoulders, instead of the manufacturer's shoulders for making a mistake with their method of laminating?

There's SOME responsibility being taken on the part of Mystic, but a lot of unwarranted blame and COST being put on Joe & Jeff for their boats' construction not holding up.

Cosker: "Be that as it is, I took that hull in on trade and put Jeff in a new hull that was being built on spec so he could get back out on the course quickly."

Matt Trulio: Have you found any sort of common denominator in the problem?

His (Stevenson’s) current boat, hull No. 6., had a problem with the rear starboard lifting strake on the run to Bimini and back. The boat was delayed in getting back to our shop due to some other issues, and we only had a few days to repair the strake. Unfortunately in our haste to fix it we missed some of the damage and it cracked back out at Lake St. Clair. It wasn’t a large amount of damage—we may have been able to be fixed the night before the race—but both Jeff and I judged it wasn’t prudent to take the chance.

Matt Trulio: What’s the long-term solution?

Since these two boats were built we have changed our lamination practices by not vacuum bagging both running surfaces individually but putting the two running surfaces under separate bags to ensure the there is not too much “out time” before full vacuum is pulled. Due to this change, I don’t expect to see any other issues like this appear.

So Jeff had to "trade in" the first boat that wasn't built correctly, then pay what sounds like a substantial amount of money, for a second boat that had issues with the construction as well, even though the reason for both boats failing, was due to errors made by the factory during the lamination process?

Now, Mystic expects there will be no future problems with the lamination process, after not intentionally, but using both of Jeff's boats to figure out their overall lamination procedure was flawed. It sounds like Jeff basically had to bankroll the R&D process needed to identify the problems, by having to buy TWO boats...the first one of which was almost lost completely, & the second having to go back & forth through the trial & error process at his expense of time & money?

What a freakin MESS

Comment:

I found your post to be very poignant and it is interesting no one has commented on what you wrote.

It really is quite simple for me perhaps there is a whole lot more going on behind the scenes.

However on the surface the following hypothetical scenario comes to mind---A group of performance boaters/racers are gathered around and talking about a hull delaminating. The subject boats intended purpose is to go extremely fast on the water i.e...170MPH and above.

The conversation for the group should have only one conclusion...."If a boat delaminates I am not getting back in it period."

At the speeds the JBS boat frequents you MUST have confidence in the product/hull otherwise you are unnecessarily putting your life in jeopardy. Thus, if you have any doubt or hesitation walk away and do what you have to do.

Bottom line is the manufacturer must demonstrate the safety of their product.

KAP

P.S. As for repairs those people are crazy where does it end---who decides when the structural integrity of a product has been compromised to the level of being irreparable---and are you willing to bet your life on it.

Note: I have no agenda in this issue other than as a fellow boater---somewhere along the way people lost sight or respect of the current speeds boats are obtaining and more so of the possible consequences. [I often forget as well.]

If Cosker is such a stand up guy and behind his product !!!!!!

Why did he rape JEFF ????? he screwed him left and right with no vasiline ..LOL
The right thing to do would been to just give him a new 100% perfect boat in the first place...HE PAID FOR IT !!!!!!!! NO ?? mmmmhhh..i am lost !

Thanks Steve. In layman's terms, just make the patch real big.

"Saying AFTER the fact, that the boat should have been brought in at the first sign of trouble, sounds more like a cop out for lack of a better term, to put the responsibility on Jeff & Joe's shoulders, instead of the manufacturer's shoulders for making a mistake with their method of laminating? "

=....how do ya like my thread!....

we would have never finished one race if we needed to stop first sign of "cosmetic" damage! good thing we have brian on our team that is the head painter of a massive body and paint facility, or we would never have even started a race! brian also spent months at mystic.

What I don't understand is, how did JBS Racing end up with both hulls that had delamination problems?

LOL yes Sir, There is not much that can not be fixed, Composite aircraft are repaired every day.